Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 10:11:59 +0100
From: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.cz>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@gmail.com>,
        Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd@petrovitsch.priv.at>,
        Chris J Arges <chris.j.arges@canonical.com>,
        live-patching@vger.kernel.org, Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 19/20] x86/asm/efi: Create a stack frame in efi_call()
Message-ID: <20150814091159.GA2865@codeblueprint.co.uk>
References: <cover.1439521412.git.jpoimboe@redhat.com>
 <89cbfadfe41061aeeacb56a4b384adf82f272e97.1439521412.git.jpoimboe@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <89cbfadfe41061aeeacb56a4b384adf82f272e97.1439521412.git.jpoimboe@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1846
Lines: 57

On Thu, 13 Aug, at 10:10:40PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> efi_call() is a callable non-leaf function which doesn't honor
> CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER, which can result in bad stack traces.
> 
> Create a stack frame for it when CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER is enabled.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
> Cc: Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@intel.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/platform/efi/efi_stub_64.S | 3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi_stub_64.S b/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi_stub_64.S
> index 86d0f9e..0df2dcc 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi_stub_64.S
> +++ b/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi_stub_64.S
> @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
>  #include <asm/msr.h>
>  #include <asm/processor-flags.h>
>  #include <asm/page_types.h>
> +#include <asm/frame.h>
>  
>  #define SAVE_XMM			\
>  	mov %rsp, %rax;			\
> @@ -74,6 +75,7 @@
>  	.endm
>  
>  ENTRY(efi_call)
> +	FRAME_BEGIN
>  	SAVE_XMM
>  	mov (%rsp), %rax
>  	mov 8(%rax), %rax
> @@ -88,6 +90,7 @@ ENTRY(efi_call)
>  	RESTORE_PGT
>  	addq $48, %rsp
>  	RESTORE_XMM
> +	FRAME_END
>  	ret
>  ENDPROC(efi_call)

You mention that stackvalidate will recursively validate the frame
pointers in all code paths. Since we're calling into firmware code from
efi_call(), we don't need to do anything special here right?

I'm guessing stackvalidate would just stop since it has no way of
knowing the target address of the %call instruction, but I just wanted
to check (especially since the firmware ABI is different).

Reviewed-by: Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@intel.com>

-- 
Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/